Sunday, November 04, 2007

Spiked on UPI

Sean Collins, in the latest spiked review of books:

If there is a redeeming feature of the Duke story, Taylor and Johnson find it in the response of the Duke students. Although some were against the players early on, many reserved judgment, and, as the facts emerged, campaigned for the accused students. Abandoned by adults in the administration and faculty, perhaps the students at Duke (and elsewhere) have learned that it is now up to them to get American society back on track.

46 comments:

",perhaps the students at Duke (and elsewhere) have learned that it is now up to them to get American society back on track".

As the mother of twin teens who have quite sophisticated--if a bit traditional--views on life I have great faith in the next generation doing exactly THAT.

My son is racing through my copy of UPI--I haven't even had a chance at it yet. With each chapter...he comes racing into the family room to inform me of the latest developments, "Mom did you know...", eyes wide and temper blazing. As a pasty white, blue/grey eyed male teenager, he definitely sees "There but for the Grace of God". How scary for him (and all teen boys). We've started talking about how to avoid putting himself in a situation where a girl could falsely accuse him. So sad that is necessary, but as the Duke case has shown, it certainly is.

The review is...ok. It is inaccurate about "Christian conservatives," however. Most adult Christian conservatives have had their own experiences - in their youth, perhaps - with alcohol and parties. I haven't read many posts from Christian conservatives who blamed the players. Most of us understand youthful indiscretion, having been there ourselves. I can't think of one conservative Christian friend who thought that the young men deserved any part of what they experienced. Not one. I certainly didn't blame the players, and never have. And furthermore, I don't think more rules on alcohol will do any good.

At the heart of the issue, most conservatives - and liberals - who were aghast at the case as it proceeded were deeply impressed at how easily the Constitution of the United States was set aside, and how easily the accused were being railroaded.

While Collins is right about PC being a ubiquitous entity, and about a lot of other things, he's unfortunately taken a PC view of conservative Christians, himself.

Radical faculty members did not hesitate to presume guilt, and emerged to denounce the players. Houston A Baker Jr, a professor of English and of African and Afro-American Studies, was particularly prominent in the media. In a public letter to the administration, Baker wrote that the team embodied ‘abhorrent sexual assault, verbal racial violence and drunken white, male privilege loosed amongst us’. And in an email to the mother of a lacrosse player, Baker called her son and his teammates ‘farm animals’. A ‘Group of 88’ faculty signed a full-page advertisement in the campus paper that described Duke as a ‘social disaster’ for students who are ‘objects of racism and sexism’ and ‘see illuminated in this moment’s extraordinary spotlight what they live with everyday’. The signers asserted without qualification that something ‘happened to this young woman [Mangum]’, and thanked protesters ‘for not waiting and for making yourselves heard’.

Baker is the poster child for the rebel faculty rather than Wah Wah or KKKarla. Baker was, at the time, a respected faculty member. Now that Houston has been exposed for his "fairness and justice" background, respected, honest, and excellence are descriptors that will not be used with Baker. They will be replaced with biased, agenda-driven, dishonest, and misrepresented. Alas, another one bites the dust.

The Duke administration clearly distanced themselves from the team. University president Richard Broadhead said sexual assault has no place at Duke, stressed that the criminal allegations, if proved true, would lead to serious penalties, and took the unprecedented step of cancelling the lacrosse team’s season – all of which led onlookers to believe the players were guilty. Broadhead would later suspend the accused players, and appoint a ‘campus culture committee’ – largely consisting of the ‘Group of 88’ professors – to investigate racism and sexism at Duke. Clearly Duke will fall farther in the tier of college rankings as long as Boardhead and the Broad of Trustees remain at Duke. If this crowd remains, then the level of respect for the university will plummet (as though it hasn't made a major thud in the last two years).

The only bright spot in this story is our introduction to KC Johnson. Though a liberal Democrat, KC has fought for honesty and justice without pushing his agenda (unless his agenda is honesty and justice). We have been blessed to have experienced KC's influence over these past months. Please don't leave us KC. We can tolerate a reduction in posts but it will be a dark day in Wonderland if DIW disappears. You have developed quite a following for your fresh, honest, in-depth approach.Thanks.

I just donated my last copy of UPI to a fraternity parent's day auction. Unfortunately my wife and I are unable to attend, but I will be curious to see the response.

There will be about two hundred young men, their parents, and guests attending. All are white males, many are former athletes, from the wrong zip codes, enrolled in a school in a town similar to Durham.

They have very, very big targets on themselves and most don't realize how far into harms way they have subjected themselves.

I found out yesterday that the school has erected a statue of Hugo Chavez which I've not confirmed.

When I asked Stuart about the upcoming HBO film, the main part of the question was concern about how much control he and KC would have on the finished product......how true to the book they would require HBO to be?

And given all that has transpired since the book was finished, would the film touch on those events?

Stuart indicated that he and KC had confidence that HBO would be true to their book, but like most contractual agreements such as this, it is all but impossible to get the producers of a film to sign away their own authority over the end product.

Stuart was quick to say that everything was still in play and neither he nor KC had signed anything in stone.

I absolutely do think students can help get American society back on track. One very easy thing that can be done from this day forward, is to assure freedom of speech for all students on campus.

These little weenie cowards that scream and raise hell at forums so others are denied their rights to hear “all” speakers, should be expelled from college. At once!

Any faculty member inciting the suppression of freedom of speech will be dismissed, tenure or not. Diane Nelson goes “NOW.” (That’s a good one!)

Clearly these vocal cowards are not real men, or real women. They are what I call the shadow specie, that evolved from the basic leftover haters of every known human cause.

Students today are capable of making up their own minds, but to be able to do that, they need to hear all points-of-view, not just the hate fueled discourse of the subversive Gang of 88 types.

After the FIRE article I read student comments at other colleges, and a couple of the student’s comment pages had been shut down. That does not sound good. What’s that about I wonder, maybe the FIRE was too hot for comfort?

One student comment page said attacks on faculty will not be allowed! In Duke’s case that would mean so-called faculty can call students “farm animals,” but students cannot call faculty "racist pigs."Go figure that freedom!

We were discussing stupid things that college kids do in my homeschooling email list so I recommended UPI. One lady said that she thought that what happened in the LAX case was not the norm. So I pointed out that the book was also about many other areas like due process, the justice system, etc. I also pointed out that students heading off to college should read it to open their eyes about the environment that they will be living in.

It appears that there are many people out there that have an impression of what the book says and that won't consider buying it with that impression.

The 10 percent turnout for the recent city election was a disgrace! Such neglect of our civic responsibility is a major cause of our ineffective, if not outright corrupt in places, government for too many years. It facilitated the perpetuation of failed officials. Folks, are you ever going to vote?

The Durham Committee for the Affairs of Black People and its allies, the "liberal" PACs, have long since proven inadequate for reform.

The latest atrocities are learning how far behind we are on street and sidewalk repairs and how little a second bond issue will accomplish compared with the arrears. Must we continue this behavior downtown?

Voting for these groups is voting for political correctness. Did not the Duke lacrosse case vividly document this pervasive problem? We need common sense and honesty in government, not ideology. Voting for Democrats, alas, is voting for political correctness. Think about it!

We need outside, comprehensive audits of city finances and the bureaucracy. Only Stith has called for a financial audit in the past. Imagine, given our past, what they may uncover. Where are you, candidates?

WILLIAM RECTOR ERWIN JR.DurhamNovember 4, 2007

***********************************************

In Singapore, Duke partners with repression

In his annual address to the faculty, President Richard Brodhead again chanted "great international university" as if repeating this mantra would do the trick. He got more mileage out of his trip to China two years ago, and then he employed a new word: Duke's growing international intertwining involves "trade-offs."

I wonder what he means by that.

Consider Duke's richest international deal, the seven-year franchise for the government of Singapore to award Duke medical degrees.

I assume the "trade-off" is $310 million for getting in bed with a government ranked by human rights activists as the most repressive in the developed world. Warwick University, a top ten school in England, refused this very deal, fearing "the government will interfere if academic reports cast a negative light on their policies."

Can you imagine what would happen if Duke sent a female doctor to Singapore, and she wanted to research and publish on reproductive freedom, a topic the government bans? And if the female doctor arrived with her lesbian partner? And if one was white, the other black?

Is the "trade-off" leaving core values like academic freedom and equality behind?

Duke should be a beacon for the pursuit of truth, freedom of speech and thought, and for fulfilling its Statement of Equal Opportunity, which "prohibits discrimination and harassment, and provides equal ... opportunity without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, disability, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, sex, or age."

Brodhead may find succor in the word "trade-off." I think sell-out might be more honest.

When I asked Stuart about the upcoming HBO film, the main part of the question was concern about how much control he and KC would have on the finished product......how true to the book they would require HBO to be?

And given all that has transpired since the book was finished, would the film touch on those events?

Stuart indicated that he and KC had confidence that HBO would be true to their book, but like most contractual agreements such as this, it is all but impossible to get the producers of a film to sign away their own authority over the end product.

Stuart was quick to say that everything was still in play and neither he nor KC had signed anything in stone.

11/4/07 9:07 AM

I don't think we have any reason to hope that Hollywood won't do to UPI what it did to The Bonfire of the Vanities. I'm expecting a lame movie.

Not that things didn't need reforming: there was something like a 90% upper tax rate; church attendance was a social obligation, not a sincere expression of faith; racial and sexual disparity was everywhere; there was a tendency to believe in the gods of medicine and government - (and that hasn't changed; it's still the same!) Ecstacy use was somewhat sporadic: hypocrisy was the most commonly available drug.

Now that the anti-this'n thats of the 60s have come to roost, we see even more hypocrisy than ever.

At Liestoppers, 'Locomotive Breath' reported an interesting item from Stuart Taylor's recent appearance at Duke. In conversation after the talk, Taylor noted that U.P.I.'s authors had to shop their book to about 20 publishers. Many lost interest when they discovered that the lacrosse players were not choirboys; many others lost interest on realizing that they were.

And the tidbit: Taylor related to L.B. that, before U.P.I. hit the shelves, Prof. Wahneema Lubiano sent a letter to Thomas Dunne Books, threatening to sue for libel.

Even at this late date, wouldn't it be great if she made good on her threat? Thoughts of Discovery... maybe we can start a collection to help her along.

Perhaps my biggest compliant about he PC crowd is that at heart it seems anti-intellectual. There is no research, no modifying of opinions as new data emerges, severe restrictions of free speech, no open exchange of ideas ect.

At its core research and adopting opinions as new information emerges is at the heart of scholarship. In history KC could not ignore new documents that were released as part of FOIA if they contradicted his previous assertions. Why is it that the PC crowd is not held to the same standards?

"At Liestoppers, 'Locomotive Breath' reported an interesting item from Stuart Taylor's recent appearance at Duke. In conversation after the talk, Taylor noted that U.P.I.'s authors had to shop their book to about 20 publishers. Many lost interest when they discovered that the lacrosse players were not choirboys; many others lost interest on realizing that they were."

This was a part of Stuart's program....relayed to the entire audience.

I have been thinking about that statement. When I read your CUNY tenure case, it seemed to me you were fighting a very liberal establishment, and some very levelheaded students,did come to your defense. Not liberal weenies that throw pies into a woman’s face because she doesn‘t say what they want to hear.

I think you should be described as at least a “Zell Miller” Democrat, or a borderline conservative Democrat.

I have learned a great deal in your Wonderland, but I have to wonder if you have had some second thoughts about this “Liberal Democrat” label? I can’t think that the lessons you have taught me, are lost on yourself.

Are you in a “Susan Thorne” situation? Do you have to live in the bigoted little world of these people no matter what? I think the secret is out about liberal Democrats and you. THEY HATE YOU!

Interesting this: “They began to identify Johnson as an independent thinker, perhaps even a conservative Republican.”

Nice review, sadly I don't agree that many now believe the Lax players to be innocent. Unfortunately, the PC crowd has little time for the truth and less time for those with different views. The group of 88 and those of similiar persuasion have no use for truth, justice, and due process if it doesn't support their world view.

"One student comment page said attacks on faculty will not be allowed! In Duke’s case that would mean so-called faculty can call students “farm animals,” but students cannot call faculty "racist pigs."-------------------------------------The Concerned Duke Faculty issued their "clarifying statement" in January. Elizabeth Clark, professor of religion, co-authored the letter. I have always been troubled by her rationale for the letter. She is quoted in a Chronicle article as saying; "When the situation becomes such that honored members of the faculty are being attacked on blogs in very personal ways, I think it's perhaps time to say that we join in... the struggle against racism and sexism at Duke."

Professor Clark only became involved publically when "honored" members of the faculty were attacked. She didn't seem to be bothered when the lacrosse players were being vilified as racists and rapists not only in blogs but in the national media. I don't recall any criticism of the attacks or call for respect for due process from the professor of religion after Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty were indicted and very real and personal attacks were being made against them. In fact some of these attacks actually came from the "honored" members of the faculty.

The above comments mention Houston Baker but there were many more, think William Chafe, Karla Holloway, Peter Wood, etc., who never spoke out against the mob mentality gripping Duke or called for the voice of reason to prevail on the Duke campus.

Each of these "honored" members of the faculty has been greatly diminished in my opinion.

In the wake of the Duke lacrosse case, the policy of not identifying sex crime accusers is under review at The N&O. An internal committee is looking at issues such as whether accusers should be identified or, if not, whether the accused also should be shielded.

There is a good bit of sentiment both within the paper and outside for identifying accusers, out of fairness to the accused who routinely are identified when charged. Other arguments: Newspapers are in the business of providing information, not withholding it, and shielding victims contributes to the social stigma attached to sexual assault cases.

"We have an awareness that by shielding women in that way, you perpetuate the stigma," said Sarah Avery, the editor heading the internal review. "But we also know that the stigma does exist" and that many victims don't have the fortitude of a Cynthia Morton to put themselves in the public eye.

Jim Woodall, district attorney for Orange and Chatham counties, told me that identifying accusers would have a chilling effect on victims' willingness to pursue charges. "Over the years, I have known so many, both women and men, who would tell me they did not want to go forward in a case because they did not want to let people know what happened to them, because of the stigma attached."

I personally think either both accuser and accused should be shielded, or both should be identified.

As we've seen in the Duke case, when the accuser is protected while the accused is publicly vilified, it's quite easy to falsely persecute the accused.

Crystal Gail Mangum quite easily pulled off her false accusations from behind the comfort of anonymity for many months. Had she been subjected to the same level of public exposure as those she FALSELY accused, she might have thought twice about perpetrating such cruelty on these innocent young men.

The other side of the issue is whether, if the accuser is shielded, it's fair to identify the accused. That problem was highlighted on a national scale by the Duke case, but I'm more troubled by a less heralded case recently in the news.

Last month, Woodall dropped charges against five high-school-age boys in Chapel Hill who had been charged with raping a teenage girl. The district attorney said there were too many inconsistencies in the evidence to go to trial.

Here's what bothers me: When the young men were charged, The N&O identified them but, in keeping with its policy, did not identify the accuser. The paper also ran a photo of the youths being led out of a courtroom in shackles and jail jumpsuits.

Some readers complained to me at the time that the picture was unduly harsh on five teenagers (they are all 17 or 18). My response was that it's routine for newspapers to run photos of suspects arrested in crimes. Why should we show favoritism to these five?

But now that the case has been dropped, I wonder. They've been cleared of the charges, but the publicity attendant to their arrest adheres to five young lives. The N&O ran several stories reporting on charges in the case (in fairness, one story led off with the father of one of the accused teenagers saying his son was not guilty). Meanwhile, the accuser remains anonymous.

AF said... Wah Wah ------------------------I am so glad you know shorthand. I must say that is brilliant. You don’t mind if I use Wah Wah do you? I am thinking of making an index of these name shortcuts. I will be watching for your additions. You can see there are accomplished writers, as well as comedians in this forum. Room for everyone’s opinion, that is the secret to success. You gave me a good laugh.

"As we've seen in the Duke case, when the accuser is protected while the accused is publicly vilified, it's quite easy to falsely persecute the accused."

That statement applies in spades to the idea of legal shields being provided to journalists, to deny the public any knowlege of their anonymous 'sources'.

In such cases, the journalist becomes the accuser, channelling a blacked-out source, and the accused is deprived of much of the spectrum of defense alternatives.

It becomes all too easy for a politically correct journalist to ply her trade, as she might see it, in 'making a difference' or 'working for change', by levelling charges against an innocent target based on her 'source' who provides - well, whatever narrative will cause the most damage to the target.

Those who deny this scenario must have deliberately closed their minds to the events so well described in UPI and on this blog.

Insufficiently Sensitive said... "As we've seen in the Duke case, when the accuser is protected while the accused is publicly vilified, it's quite easy to falsely persecute the accused."

That statement applies in spades to the idea of legal shields being provided to journalists, to deny the public any knowlege of their anonymous 'sources'.

In such cases, the journalist becomes the accuser, channelling a blacked-out source, and the accused is deprived of much of the spectrum of defense alternatives.

It becomes all too easy for a politically correct journalist to ply her trade, as she might see it, in 'making a difference' or 'working for change', by levelling charges against an innocent target based on her 'source' who provides - well, whatever narrative will cause the most damage to the target.

Those who deny this scenario must have deliberately closed their minds to the events so well described in UPI and on this blog.

11/4/07 3:38 PM

Absolutely! I couldn't agree more. And...unless I am reading this wrong--it even sounds like the author of that column I posted earlier was having a slight (albeit likely temporary) attack of conscience...

To wit:"Here's what bothers me: When the young men were charged, The N&O identified them but, in keeping with its policy, did not identify the accuser. The paper also ran a photo of the youths being led out of a courtroom in shackles and jail jumpsuits.

Some readers complained to me at the time that the picture was unduly harsh on five teenagers (they are all 17 or 18). My response was that it's routine for newspapers to run photos of suspects arrested in crimes. Why should we show favoritism to these five?

But now that the case has been dropped, I wonder. They've been cleared of the charges, but the publicity attendant to their arrest adheres to five young lives. The N&O ran several stories reporting on charges in the case (in fairness, one story led off with the father of one of the accused teenagers saying his son was not guilty). Meanwhile, the accuser remains anonymous."

"And the tidbit: Taylor related to L.B. that, before U.P.I. hit the shelves, Prof. Wahneema Lubiano sent a letter to Thomas Dunne Books, threatening to sue for libel.

Even at this late date, wouldn't it be great if she made good on her threat? Thoughts of Discovery... maybe we can start a collection to help her along."Collection? Oh give me a break. Of all the things to suggest...

I remember that photo. I remember wondering as to why that photo was published, since the accused were minors under 18 years of age.Is N&O going to learn anything from these cases? Pardon me if I doubt it.

The political fashions that begin in Britain tend to find their way toCanada extremely quickly, especially when they come from the left sideof the body politic.

A new report from the think-tank of the governing Labour Party statesthat, "Britain is no longer a Christian nation and Christmas should bedowngraded in favour of festivals from other religions to improve racerelations."

The report goes on to call for a new form of "birth ceremony," atwhich the state and parents would agree to "work in partnership" toraise babies. It demands action to "ensure access" for ethnicminorities to the "largely white" British countryside, advocates anend to "sectarian" religious education in schools and encouragespeople to fly flags other than the Union Jack.

"If we are going to continue as a nation to mark Christmas," thereport says, "then public organizations should mark other religiousfestivals too." And, "any liberal state should recast the civic oathsand national ceremonies, or institutions like Parliament and themonarchy, in a more multi-religious or secular form."

So the pre-enlightened Ebenezer Scrooge has told us what Britainshould become. Or has become to a relatively large extent. But unlikethe products of Charles Dickens' generous and compassionateimagination, the spirits behind this report are nasty, intolerant andcrude.

DANGER FOR CANADA

So what of Canada? We're in enormous danger. We adopted an officialpolicy of multiculturalism long ago and decided that Canada simply wasnot worth preserving.

Immigrants to the country who wanted to assimilate, adapt and becometruly Canadian were told that there was no need. Hold on to your ownculture and traditions, speak your own languages, be anything unlessit's Canadian.

Don't blame newcomers for doing what they were told to do by arrogantwhite liberals who always know best. Instead of the community and thefamily there was the state and the collective. Instead of patriotismthere was self-loathing. Instead of sacrifice there was entitlement.

Instead of Christianity there was, well, there was anything. Even tothe point of embracing alternative religions that by their naturerejected the very pluralism, equality and progress that the socialengineers claimed to cherish.

Much of the problem began when Canada found itself spoiled. We hadsurvived the Depression, the Second World War and post-war austerity.Then came the vacuous '60s. Instead of being grateful for what we had,we wanted even more and assumed that anything that appeared new andnovel had to be good.

TRUDEAU

Along came the prince of the new and novel and he was far from good.Trudeau. A man who so detested English Canada that he became obsessedwith expunging Anglo-Celtic culture and rebuilding Canada in his ownimage.

New Canadians would not be required to speak or to learn English andinstead of one law, one way and one country for all, we would divideand subdivide into ethnic and linguistic ghettos. The wealthy would,of course, be immune and indifferent because money buys its own formof golden separation.

For the rest, the pieces of the jigsaw no longer fit and the picturebecame broken. Festivals, faith and traditions became threatened. Howironic that the British, whose heritage our leaders rejected, now arelighting the path to self destruction.

There still might be time to save Canada the great. But only if wejettison the humbug.

...Re: Students getting involved...Questions to KC Johnson...Sean Collins writes, -Johnson (a liberal Democrat)-...I have been thinking about that statement. When I read your CUNY tenure case, it seemed to me you were fighting a very liberal establishment, and some very levelheaded students,did come to your defense. Not liberal weenies that throw pies into a woman’s face because she doesn't say what they want to hear. ...I think you should be described as at least a “Zell Miller” Democrat, or a borderline conservative Democrat. ...I have learned a great deal in your Wonderland, but I have to wonder if you have had some second thoughts about.. this “Liberal Democrat” label? I can't think that the lessons you have taught me, are lost on yourself. ::Since you did not address this comment to KC via private e-mail, I will assume you are inviting comments.

There are now several Political Orientation Self Tests available on the web in response to student inquiries about confusing terms used to describe ones political orientation e.g. Zell Miller Democrat.

Here are two of the many Political Orientation Self Tests available.http://www.politicalcompass.org http://www.politopia.com/

For most of the people who comment here, isn't the issue wether they are centrist right or centrist left? In a relative stable economy such as we enjoy here in the USA, we don't really see the extremist unless Duke hires several so we can observe and comment.

It would be helpful if we could adopt a standard vocabulary so that we can talk with each other about political orientation.

Orientation means of course our generalized orientation to most issues.::GP

I don't think we have any reason to hope that Hollywood won't do to UPI what it did to The Bonfire of the Vanities. I'm expecting a lame movie.

RRH 11/4/07 10:05 AM

Divah replied at 12:06 PM,

TO RRH--

Don't be so pessimistic.

Divah, in order to make an honest movie about UPI, Hollywood would have to make a movie that, taken as a whole, makes blacks and leftwingers look baaaaad, right? When was the last time Hollywood did that?

I'm not being pessimistic, just realistic. Hollywood is owned by 88ists.

The Concerned Duke Faculty issued their "clarifying statement" in January. Elizabeth Clark, professor of religion, co-authored the letter. I have always been troubled by her rationale for the letter. She is quoted in a Chronicle article as saying; "When the situation becomes such that honored members of the faculty are being attacked on blogs in very personal ways, I think it's perhaps time to say that we join in... the struggle against racism and sexism at Duke."

Did Prof. Clark ever contact the mothers of the innocent victims of the Hoax? Or did she limit her activities to showing concern and support for the feelings of the victimizers? In other words, is she fit to be called a human being or not? If not, then she's probably fit to be a professor of religion under the "standards" that exist in today's academia.

traveler said...One student comment page said attacks on faculty will not be allowed! In Duke’s case that would mean so-called faculty can call students “farm animals,” but students cannot call faculty "racist pigs."

In "Animal Farms" some pigs have more privilege than others.

I am so glad you know shorthand. I must say that is brilliant. You don’t mind if I use Wah Wah do you?I am thinking of making an index of these name shortcuts. I will be watching for your additions. You can see there are accomplished writers, as well as comedians in this forum. Room for everyone’s opinion, that is the secret to success. You gave me a good laugh.

Hopefully some of them can be immortalised as verbs...such as to "nifong".

Regarding KC's self description as "Liberal Democrat" it isn't his fault that certain PC authoritarians have hijacked the label. They have likewise pinched "progressive" which is rapidly losing any value as an adjective.

"I haven't read many posts from Christian conservatives who blamed the players."

There was of course Ann Coulter's early crack about "Lie down with whores, wake up with pleas." But then she's in the outrageious quote business - plus she changed her tune as more information came out.

Elizabeth Clark, professor of religion, co-authored the letter. ("clarifying statement")I have always been troubled by her rationale for the letter. --------------While we are discussing people of religion, read this:-------------------------M. Garlinda Burton, top executive of the United Methodist Commission on the Status and Role of Women, is concerned about the perception that "young white men of privilege feel that they have the right to purchase the sexual services of women of color with lesser financial means. Even if the women were paid to strip, they still had the right to say 'no' to sexual assault."http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idCategory=33&idsub=134&id=3263

Ralph - Anne Coulter recognized the event as a lie from the get go. You should read all of her articles about the case. You will see that she never changed her position on the case. She has been a star in the entire event. Having written "You can greatly reduce your chances of being called a rapist, if you do not have strange woman come to your house and take their cloths off" is absolutly true.

Blog Awards

About Me

I am from Higgins Beach, in Scarborough, Maine, six miles south of Portland. After spending five years as track announcer at Scarborough Downs, I left to study fulltime in graduate school, where my advisor was Akira Iriye. I have a B.A. and Ph.D. from Harvard, and an M.A. from the University of Chicago. At Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center, I teach classes in 20th century US political, constitutional, and diplomatic history; in 2007-8, I was Fulbright Distinguished Chair for the Humanities at Tel Aviv University.

Book

Comments Policy

(1) Comments are moderated, but with the lightest of touches, to exclude only off-topic comments or obviously racist or similar remarks.

(2) My clearing a comment implies neither that I agree nor that I disagree with the comment. My opinion is expressed in my words and my words only. Since this blog has more than 1500 posts, and since I at least occasionally comment myself, the blog provides more than enough material for readers to discern my opinions.

(3) If a reader finds an offensive comment, I urge the reader to e-mail me; if the comment is offensive, I will gladly delete it.

(4) Commenters who either misrepresent their identity or who engage in obvious troll behavior will not have their comments cleared. Troll-like behavior includes, but is not limited to: repeatedly linking to off-topic sites; repeatedly asking questions that already have been answered; offering unsubstantiated remarks whose sole purpose appears to be inflaming other commenters.

"From the Scottsboro Boys to Clarence Gideon, some of the most memorable legal narratives have been tales of the wrongly accused. Now “Until Proven Innocent,” a new book about the false allegations of rape against three Duke lacrosse players, can join these galvanizing cautionary tales . . , Taylor and Johnson have made a gripping contribution to the literature of the wrongly accused. They remind us of the importance of constitutional checks on prosecutorial abuse. And they emphasize the lesson that Duke callously advised its own students to ignore: if you’re unjustly suspected of any crime, immediately call the best lawyer you can afford."--Jeffrey Rosen, New York Times Book Review